XBTUSD is back: his last post describes his first sex party, and he’s written three other posts too.
Almost every male and female in a modern dating context is doing some form of a dance: women want an escalator relationship towards marriage, and men want to avoid committing for a long as possible. Men enjoy the pre-label part of the relationship and women get value and security out of the label. Breeze’s post and Nash/RQ’s comments brought up some interesting points about this age-old topic: should a guy get out in front of things and confront the inevitable and have the talk, or should you avoid the talk and build tension, as Nash suggests? I strongly side with RQ and Lucas Bly, but Nash’s comments added another distinction. I’ve heard many in TRP communities argue that those who have the talk aren’t skilled, can’t hold tension, and are essentially pussies for giving in to what the woman wants and losing the frame. But Nash’s comment that he offers up, “I am your lover” made me realize we all might actually be agreeing here.
There’s value in building and holding tension, but only if it is inevitably released. Good standup is setup, punchline, build tension, release tension, and good seduction should have a similar cadence. Those who say you can avoid “the talk” altogether come off as those that haven’t spent much time around women and are LARPing. The talk is inevitable, so how can we approach it from a Red Pill frame. We have to lead. Create the frame, and let her step into it.
TRQ has a great post on the book Warrior King Magician Lover. I think what Nash is saying is how I actually see things. A guy can’t avoid the topic, and he has to give her something (or she won’t stick around, if she’s smart and has reasonable self-esteem), and you have to give her something she can relate to. The human brain is relational by nature, everything must be related to something else in our experience. The lover is a brilliant archetype for Nash to offer. I’m not boring, there is intimacy here, but intimacy that’s not defined in a traditional boyfriend/girlfriend context. What movies/narratives/cultural scripts does her brain access when you say “lover?”
The word “lover” is really a secret code that conjures up a set of emotions/imagery in her brain. You want her to think about the hot sex, the illicit or forbidden aspects of a “lover”, not the boring routines of playing house together. The lover is all the best parts of a relationship, and none of the bad/boring parts. It allows her to intellectually stimulate herself by imagining you and she as characters in a movie, exciting her, and allowing fantasy to be the context rather than the bounds of reality.
Since you can’t avoid the talk, it’s best to offer up some archetype for her to build around. For Nash it sounds like Lover is perfect, for RQ maybe it’s Magician. For some maybe it’s King. To Nash’s point, we add structure, and we lead her.
Having the talk gives her ammo to help her navigate “the talks” she has to have with others. Is her status being raised or lowered by being with you? If you are just fucking her and getting the milk without buying the cow, her status will be lowered in the eyes of her female friends. However, if she has a hot older “lover”, suddenly the script flips and her status is raised. She has something the others want. Why the hell would she want commitment, she has all the best parts of a relationship and none of the bad parts? Who wouldn’t be jealous of their friend having a “lover?” Most women aren’t able to navigate these tricky societal conventions, so give her language and structure to help her tackle them with strength and grace.
A girl I was seeing a few years ago told me that I was a Zaddy (I had never heard the term) and I’ve adopted that character/frame in the way Nash has “Lover”.
It feels like Breeze still has a negative frame around open relationships. He doesn’t believe his own bullshit, and girls can smell it a mile away. Once you see open relationships as a strength rather than a weakness, you’ll be able to approach the conversation from the frame of making someone an offer to join you in something epic, rather than sounding like you’re disclosing a venereal disease. One persuasion technique that is useful here is “thinking past the sale.” Get her (and yourself) thinking about what will happen AFTER they’ve said yes. Build a world that they want to step into, and then the yes becomes the obvious answer rather than no.” Why say no when it feels so good to say yes.”
Red Quest back again: concerning XBTUSD’s final paragraph, a woman who really wants a husband and family will justifiably reject an open relationship, because she knows that an open relationship doesn’t advance her life goals. There are ways to do open relationships and have a family, but I’ve rarely seen that situation really work. And most people who get into that situation take their time working their way into it, dealing with jealousy, showing each other that they put each other first, etc.
For Breeze’s Ukrainian, she probably sees a huge amount of risk in investing a couple years in a relationship that doesn’t yield marriage + children. She’s right, in my opinion. I also don’t know if she has immigration issues to consider. A couple years of having fun with a charming player will leave her competing against a larger pool of women, and with more mileage, with little to show for that mileage. She’s smart to demand a future plan early, instead of waiting around hoping for the guy to change his mind.
3 thoughts on “XBTUSD’s take on “the talk” a woman gives when she wants to advance the relationship”